|
Justices of the NSW Supreme Court, left to right,
Mason, Meagher, Grove and Sully
In his homily for this year’s Red Mass, Cardinal Clancy called for the universal reconciliation we have not yet
achieved
When Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, bade his listeners come to terms with their adversaries before approaching either the altar or the courts, he was touching the very
nerve-centre of Gospel teaching. It relates directly to everything that he said on this and on other occasions about love of neighbour.
The word that this morning’s Gospel reading readily brings to mind is
‘reconciliation’. We should be reconciled with our adversary before devoting ourselves to prayer, because to offer prayer while alienated from a brother or sister would be a mockery, to contemplate litigation
instead of reconciliation would be to invite disaster.
The word ‘reconciliation’ in turn draws us to the writings of that faithful interpreter of Jesus’ teaching, St Paul. St Paul alone in the New Testament
actually uses the word ‘reconciliation’, and he does so on a number of occasions. Jesus’ mission on earth is one of reconciliation. But the reconciliation of people among themselves and the reconciliation of people
with God are interdependent. Neither one is possible without the other.
Jesus said, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and
the first commandment. The second resembles it: “You must love your neighbour as yourself” (Mt 22: 37-39). The mission of the Apostles is to carry forward that work of reconciliation, and by implication it is the
mission, too, of every follower of Christ.
Writing to the Corinthians, Paul says: “It was God who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the work of handing on this reconciliation. In other
words, God in Christ was reconciling the whole world to himself not holding men’s faults against them, and he has entrusted to us the news that we are reconciled. So we are ambassadors for Christ; it is as though
God were appealing through us, and the appeal that we make in Christ’s name is: be reconciled to God” (II Cor 5,18-20). And, one must add, to one another.
It is the same Paul who, in the context of his
times, writes in his First Letter to the Corinthians: “How dare one of your members take up a complaint against another in the law courts of the unjust instead of before the saints? … You should be ashamed: is there
really not one reliable man among you to settle differences between brothers?” (I Cor 6).
In the history of religion, the accent on reconciliation is a peculiarly, though not exclusively, Christian
contribution.
‘Reconciliation’ is not an unfamiliar word. Indeed, it is one of the most commonly occurring words in print and parlance today. We have all witnessed, and perhaps contributed to, its growth.
Almost without exception, however, it is now used only in reference to the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. That is a pity, because it has gravely impoverished the word, and our
culture has suffered as a consequence.
There is no question but that reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians is of crucial importance, and we must all work purposefully and with a
sense of urgency to bring it about; but the indigenous cause would itself benefit if addressed in a broader context and from a more universal perspective. It would go far to ensure that the cause is pursued, not
merely out of a sense of political expediency, but out of a sense of moral duty.
History could be written in terms of estrangement and hostility within and between peoples, and efforts, nearly always
inadequate and mostly fruitless, to bring about reconciliation. The contemporary world mirrors the past, and almost anywhere we look on the global map today similar distressing situations manifest themselves. Old
animosities and resentments, long since buried and forgotten, constantly re-emerge with devastating results, as we witnessed in the Balkans and in Rwanda, and now in Indonesia.
The history of religion is no
exception, and by the very nature of things is more distressing, though one notes with some comfort current efforts at ecumenical reconciliation among Christian communities and world religions.
However, we do
not have to go to the big screen to find evidence of endemic estrangement and division among human beings. We do not have to go beyond our own nation, our own local communities, our own homes and our own personal
relationships. We do not have to go beyond the daily news bulletin and our own daily experience.
A prominent Federal politician was recently quoted as rejoicing that so many thousands had in such a short
space of time taken advantage of the new Federal Magistracy established to speed-up the processing of divorce cases. While appreciating the perspective from which he spoke, one would have welcomed, at a deeper
level, some expression of profound regret. Reconciliation just does not seem to be a real option these days in the resolution of marriage differences.
The point is worth making, too, that tension and
division in our own personal lives is in continuity with tension and division in the wider community, and in and between nations. The same holds true for reconciliation.
The role of law in the work of
reconciliation is a somewhat ambiguous one. If everybody responded to the enjoinder of the Gospel and spontaneously resolved differences rather than have recourse to the courts, this morning’s congregation would be
considerably smaller than it is.
A decision of the courts can sometimes aggravate a disagreement; it can sometimes be the initial cause of disagreement. It can, of course, on occasions facilitate
reconciliation. However, it must also be said that no reconciliation can hope to endure if not founded on truth and justice, and while the law upholds truth and justice, it is playing its part in promoting
reconciliation. Moreover we applaud the initiative of members of the legal profession who have, in more recent times, thrown their weight quite expressly behind the principle of reconciliation in the creation of
alternate dispute resolution procedures.
What we must all do is develop a mentality, an instinct, for reconciliation. If the mentality is there, it will find its own way to achieve results. Most importantly
of all, we must bear in mind that reconciliation among people is a realistic goal only if there is reconciliation of people with God.
In the neglect of that principle, I suggest, lies the reason why so many
attempts at reconciliation come to nothing. May our endeavours to heal the wounds of sin and division in our world always be a work of God himself.
|
